I don't want to get the camera and not be able to use it. (Well, I guess I could use it, but I couldn't finish anything with it until it is supported by LR.)

Then do yourself a favor and add your voice to the list of people who dislike undocumented and proprietary raw file formats. The industry doesn't have to be like this if Nikon and Canon changed their behavior...a new camera that saved DNG (at least as an option) would have support from the get go. The fact that Nikon and Canon continue to force undocumented and proprietary raw file formats on the industry is why we are where we are...

After years of having heared this pile of garbage repeated over and over, I can't say I am surpised, but I can still say I am outraged.

I am outraged not only at the attitude of the camera manufacturers, who remain secretive regarding the raw data their cameras are creating and about the attitide of regarding their sucking software as the maximum their customers should be expecting.

I am equally outraged at the attitude of Adobe, whose lousy software architects (if there are any, though I don't see the result of their activities regarding raw data processing) seem to think that they are called by some suprame entity to regulate the market, while in fact they are slowing down the development.

However, all the above is nothing compared to the distasteful attempts of other suckers to make Adobe's mistakes appear as some natural limits of computing technology we should be thankful to enjoy.

Then do yourself a favor and add your voice to the list of people who dislike undocumented and proprietary raw file formats. The industry doesn't have to be like this if Nikon and Canon changed their behavior...a new camera that saved DNG (at least as an option) would have support from the get go. The fact that Nikon and Canon continue to force undocumented and proprietary raw file formats on the industry is why we are where we are...

Jeff why should Canon/Nikon provide Adobe with it's RAW details? after all they like Adobe are in business to make money, both have their own software, and their own shareholders to please. Adding support for another companies benifit isn't going to make them any money, adding DNG to their cameras is also going to cost them money, as their software already opens their RAW they don't really need to do it. One could use the same argument to suggest Adobe open up it's coding to other companies, then they could make ACR updates for the older versions of PS. Wayne

Wayne, the difference is that most of the intelligence that goes into building a camera system is the hardware and the software processing, not the file format.

Cameras that offer non-raw file formats (i.e., just about all of them) tend to use a single one: JPEG. This makes it possible for anybody who has JPEG-reading software (i.e., just about everyone) to read these camera-generated JPEGs as soon as they get the camera, without needing to wait for software updates. For example, you don't need an updated version of Picasa, Firefox, ACDSee, Photoshop, Windows, Mac OS X, etc. to read these JPEGs.

Some cameras do write in-camera DNG raw files. So, analogous to the above, anybody who has DNG-reading software can read those camera-generated DNGs as soon as they get the camera, without needing to wait for software updates.

That isn't the case with today's non-DNG raw files, which is too bad because most use an IFD structure very similar to TIFF; it's just that everyone stores the essential data in different tags (and occasionally move them around from camera to camera ...). And in some cases,the non-DNG format is quite close to DNG (such as Canon CR2 and some other recent cameras, where the image data format is identical to DNG). Many other cameras are also use delta Huffman coding to store the raw image that is trivially different from the Lossless JPEG compression that DNG uses. So I don't buy the argument that adding DNG support to the camera is really going to cost them more money; if anything it'll save them money.

Regarding your comment "provide Adobe with it's RAW details", you are confusing the image format versus the image processing. It is the image processing abilities (demosaic, noise reduction, lens corrections, tool set etc.), not the file format, where the software should (and do) compete. In other words, ideally, photographers should choose their raw converter(s) based on things like image quality and workflow, rather than what the format of the file is.

It is entirely possible for camera makers to use a common file format without divulging their image processing recipes (i.e., secret sauces) which they could continue to incorporate in their own raw converters (and sell if they choose to, such as in the case of Nikon Capture NX). I would argue that they would actually sell MORE cameras that way, based on the data I've seen.

Gabor, you have now thrown "lousy software architects" and "nightmare of software architecture" in Adobe's direction. You have made some reasonable technical arguments in the past, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but the insulting remarks are out of line. Watch your tone, please.

When we lose our ability to control our images, we are poorer for it. Kodak never told me that I could only develop my film in D76, or just use a Bessler enlarger. Maybe I preferred Rodinol and an Omega. A proprietary raw format is a clear equivalent in that the camera maker is hobbling what I do with my images. (And if you use their software, you know that I use the word hobbling without exaggeration).

Once the image is shot the camera company's role should come to an end. Creating their files (at least optionally) in an open format that allows me to use whatever image processing tools I wish is not just a want to have, it's a must have.

There are already raw formats that have been orphaned by camera makers. How will you feel when 5, 10 or 15 years from now you go to open your prize winning (money earning) raw file and find that the manufacturer's current raw processing software no longer supports it, and that the last version that did only runs on the equivalent of a Commodore 64 and is only available on a 5 1/4" floppy?

Sorry. Once the shot is taken the image is mine, and I don't want any company to control its destiny. DNG, or some other standardized format is therefore a must.

Jeff why should Canon/Nikon provide Adobe with it's RAW details? after all they like Adobe are in business to make money, both have their own software, and their own shareholders to please.

Sure they do and they should be able to do so. But I'm not buying a 5D MII (or any of my previous Cannon's) for their software. I'm buying their hardware. They can bundle software or not, I don't care. If they cripple the camera itself, I'm not too happy. And as Michael points out, the data is mine, not theirs. This is another classic example of a group of companies that don't know if they are in the hardware or software business. Really, how many Canon or Nikon customers purchase the product based on the usually lame software they bundle with the hardware? Let em make all the profits the market will allow. They allow you to produce a JPEG no? That's not proprietary nor affecting their profits. Proprietary Raw files serve no one, certainly not the consumer.

Logged

Andrew Rodney Author “Color Management for Photographers"

DarkPenguin

I thought there were "maker notes" or something in DNG. So canon or nikon wouldn't have to tell everything about their RAW files. Just put the bulk of the data in a recognizable format and stuff anything required for their secret sauce into the maker notes. Everybody wins.

The point I was making (which some of you missed) was are Nikon/Canon going to make any extra money from adding DNG, the answer is not really. Judging from the waiting list for the 5d2 and the way d700 and d3's are flying off the shelves, it seem not many togs are refusing cameras because they don't have DNG.Take Nikon for example, why would they want to encourage their customers to use a rivals software? Yes it would be nice for us togs to have more choice of formats, but business is business.Adobe doesn't support it's older version because it would cost them money and they wouldn't sell the new version. Nikon doesn't support Adobe DNG because it would cost them money and they wouldn't sell their software. Money talks I suppose. Wayne

The point I was making (which some of you missed) was are Nikon/Canon going to make any extra money from adding DNG, the answer is not really.

Take Nikon for example, why would they want to encourage their customers to use a rivals software?

Why should either Nikon of Canon care? They are selling hardware. A 3rd party might make their final product look better. Having DNG gives the customer more options. It shows good will towards a customer. It shows they care about providing a format that isn't proprietary. It in no way makes the final product less desirable, just the opposite.

Tell us how Nikon or Canon makes more money or offers more to the customer by NOT supporting DNG give the facts above.

I think if camera makers would stop trying to write processing software, and rather plug all these ressources into QM we all would benefit from that. Whether Canon, Nikon, Olympus, etc. I personally know not a single soul in my circles that uses canon, nikon, olympus etc software. Same counts for certain medium format offers, the goal is to get the DNG and after that it is Lightroom and Photoshop in my world.

The software we have at our disposal has probably plenty "man years" in development time behind it. The software that comes bundled with a camera usually would end in my bin, but I need to keep it to be able to update the cameras firmware. I just wish more cameras would write DNG to start with. I think the announced new Leica S2 will do so as well.

What Michael said is a phenomenon you can find in the audio industry already. Files became incompatible even within one single breed of sequencer software . If I am working on a composition that is saved as symphony.xyz and wait 2 years, update the software to it's latest incanation, and try to open the file.... well.... talk about a cold sausage, chances are you will not be able to swiftly have this transferred into your new application.

DNG is the best that happened to this BS since a long time IMHO. A very clever move that made me laugh in deed, while camera makers refused to standardise RAW formats and everyone cooked their own sausage, Adobe has managed to just let them be and came out with DNG which solves the problem. I am somewhat certain not everyone out there liked that!

Any attitude of camera makers that would claim the file I shoot NOT to be my property, well, I simply would not buy their camera. Just my € 0,02 which is more than $ 0,02 fwiw.

Why should either Nikon of Canon care? They are selling hardware. A 3rd party might make their final product look better. Having DNG gives the customer more options. It shows good will towards a customer. It shows they care about providing a format that isn't proprietary. It in no way makes the final product less desirable, just the opposite.

Tell us how Nikon or Canon makes more money or offers more to the customer by NOT supporting DNG give the facts above.

The first part could also be said about Adobe supporting earlier versions of ACR but they dont offer their goodwill towards us do they.I didn't say Canon or Nikon make MORE money from not having DNG.Nikon makes some money from selling it's own software (as well as it's cameras) both Canon and Nikon would have to spend a fair amount of money making all their cameras DNG format as well as their own RAW. As I suspect the vast majority of photographers are not using DNG they probably dont see the point of wasting the money to make life easier for Adobe.Wayne